ABC Nightline (Wed. 4/7): The Armageddon Plan.

 
Nightline Daily E-Mail
April 7, 2004


TONIGHT'S FOCUS: What if the worst happened? If Washington, and much of the government, was destroyed? Who would govern? And from where? There is a plan, and we've learned that part of that plan was actually implemented on 9/11. It's the Armageddon Plan.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I remember as a kid growing up under the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union that there were a fair number of movies, actually very bad movies, that dealt with what would happen after a nuclear war. Of course, I put all of the related Charlton Heston movies in a special category all their own. As I remember, those other movies usually involved plucky families packing up in the family RV and heading into the wild to build a new civilization. They always seemed to be experts on all of the skills needed, something that I knew I wasn't. But there were people in the government, specifically the Reagan administration, who took that scenario very very seriously.

Now there is an order of succession, set out in the 25th amendment to the Constitution. But in the event of a catastrophic event of some sort, it's safe to assume that many of those in the line of succession would be killed or incapacitated. Then what? And it takes much more than a President to run the country. What about the myriad of Federal agencies that actually run things? So a plan was developed that would set up several centers around the country where the government could be reconstituted. In the event of a crisis, certain officials would be sent to those locations to ensure their safety and the continuity of government. But there are all sorts of problems. What about communication? How do you convince the country that a lower-level cabinet member is now the President? How do you convince the rest of the world? And it's certain that some form of martial law would be instituted, at least for a short time.

It's clearly prudent to plan for something like this. But the threat of nuclear war has lessened. These days, the threat is different. But in the course of working on this broadcast, which was triggered by an article in The Atlantic Monthly, we learned that part of this plan was actually implemented on 9/11. So this will be our focus tonight. Ted will report on the planning and what happened on that one day. Of course, we continue to watch events in Iraq. If they spiral out of control today, we'll have to figure out how to address that story too. I hope you'll join us.

Leroy Sievers and the Nightline Staff
Nightline Offices
ABCNEWS Washington D.C. bureau

What will the White House do, fly Clarke into Andrews AFB via dual seat fighter jet?

How will they fit Richard Clarke into the 25th Amendment this time?

although I am sure that if it's going on one of the major networks, it's bound to get some press elsewhere too, so I'll probably read all about it...

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen0514.html
"May 14, 2002
U.S. Plans for Martial Law, Tele-Governance,
and the Suspension of Elections
When the War Hits Home"

That the order of presidential succession goes by order of the date of creation of the cabinet position. So Tom Ridge is absolutely last to take over, even after ... say ... the Veterans Affairs person.

Could be worse. Could be Ashcroft.

Missed the first part. They just discussed undisclosed locations for Cheney, etc. Next they are going to talk about implementing Marshal Law. I kid you not.

Was I seeing things are did Richard Clarke’s name have consultant underneath it?

I gather we were extremely close to a suspension of the Constitution and the implementation of martial law on 9/11.

It's my understanding that the target of Flight 93 is not positively known, but the dominant suggestion I've noticed has been that it was the Capitol building. Were this the case, and had the flight not taken off 40-odd minutes late, a large number of Congressmen would have been in the building at a time when there was still, amazingly, no air defense up above D.C.

And had enough congress-people been killed or otherwise incapacitated, it would have lacked a quorum, and this would have been the executive's justification for the constitutional suspension.

Have I got that right?

Further, what's the constitutional basis for this?